Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Doc91678

“This guy should have recused himself. Especially since he decided in the manner that he did.”

Should Thurgood Marshall or Justice Thomas recused theirself from cases that had to do with civil rights or Affrimitive Action?

Should Sandra Day O’Conner recused herself from cases that had to do with women?

Should the current Catholic Justices recuse themselves from cases dealing with abortion?


11 posted on 04/07/2011 5:57:02 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: trumandogz

Not the same!....and you know it


16 posted on 04/07/2011 6:10:48 PM PDT by Guenevere (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: trumandogz
Really? Is that your level of reasoning? Moral equivalency?
28 posted on 04/07/2011 6:55:16 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: trumandogz

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010

The findiings of fact should put this strawman to rest. Try Fact 77, it is one of my favorites.


29 posted on 04/07/2011 7:02:11 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: trumandogz
“This guy should have recused himself. Especially since he decided in the manner that he did.”
Should Thurgood Marshall or Justice Thomas recused theirself from cases that had to do with civil rights or Affrimitive Action?
Should Sandra Day O’Conner recused herself from cases that had to do with women?
Should the current Catholic Justices recuse themselves from cases dealing with abortion?

Quite the strawmen you lined up there.

The analogy you were searching for was:

"Should a Judge addicted to a particular perversion recuse himself from a case involving his perversion?"

30 posted on 04/07/2011 7:37:43 PM PDT by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: trumandogz; Darksheare; darkwing104; Old Sarge; Slings and Arrows; Eaker; humblegunner; Allegra

Well hi there, troomie!

It’s just so super to see you!

How have you been you sweety pants!


33 posted on 04/07/2011 7:49:04 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: trumandogz

Laughable attempt at equivocation, and an epic failure. Walker demonstrated that he had both a personal stake in the outcome of the case (automatic disqualifier) and an unbelievable bias during the entire proceeding, to the point that he disregarded both settled precedent (Baker v. Nelson) and procedural rules.


43 posted on 04/08/2011 5:29:31 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: trumandogz

Since when does a self selected life style equate with one’s sexual assignment, or color?


50 posted on 04/08/2011 10:31:20 AM PDT by Doc91678 (Doc91678)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson